Belief discrimination – take a “small claim” says Sex Matters!

[IwantToRetire]

If you are subjected to unlawful discrimination by a service provider, you can take what is known colloquially as a “small claim” to the county court.

This article relates to the law in England and Wales (in Scotland there is something similar called “simple procedure”).

Full details at https://sex-matters.org/practical-help/take-a-small-claim-for-belief-discrimination/

ooops! I should probably have posted the link to the intro articles - this is it:

Fighting bigotry in service provision
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/fighting-bigotry-in-service-provision/

Just reading through those links, and once again, you think, this is great work! These women are so on the ball.

I know.

Do you think when I grow up I could be like them?

This could be a real money-spinner 🤔

I'm sure there's plenty of people who've been refused service in a pub for wearing an AHF tee-shirt, or similar.

LWS supporters have, many times

Another tool to fight back with, thank you Sex Matters. 👍

I don't think you should be seeking other than costs and a small amount. It's the change in behaviour and actions from the service provider. Taking steps so someone born male does not use the women's toilets for example.

I love this! Empowering the Terven around the country to take action. Here’s hoping that after the first few cases plus a bit of publicity we will get some sanity in services.

It feels a bit... optimistic? Misleading? Exploitative even? to make this sound like an easy way to score some cash without dwelling at any point on the risk
that you might lose, which could include losing a substantial chunk of money if you've progressed to court. Especially when so many aspects of the law on this issue are untested, unclear, and recent court results have been so variable. Nor is there any mention of caution over the fact that the law only protects belief, it doesn't protect behaviour related to belief if that behaviour can be seen as crossing the line into animus or harassment.

I know the intention of this is probably less to actually win cases than to scare service providers into compliance/settlement through litigious threat, but using members of the public as your foot soldiers when they are likely to be a) not cash-rich and b) not experts on the law so at risk of misunderstanding where the boundaries are and throwing themselves into cases that are easily lost, it just feels... off to me.

I imagine the hope and expectation was that pre-action letters would do the job in most cases. Seems fair enough to me.

I imagine that too, but it doesn't actually say that, it just tells you how to progress to court with barely a word of caution, no disclaimer that it's always a risk or to advice to take professional legal advice before you escalate to make sure you actually have a good case.

I support Sex Matters' legal cases but when you bring a case as an organisation, you only do so when you have the funds to cover it, including the risk of loss, you have insurance, and crucially no one's personal money is at stake. I can see the benefit of service providers finding themselves inundated with letters before action but it does feel a bit like throwing troops in front of the guns with promises of cash and glory, yes through sheer numbers most will probably make it through, and we'll just gloss over the ones that might not. Are SM going to step in and help people who try this and find themselves in over their heads? Probably not realistically.

Really struggling to articulate what is troubling me about this but I think it is this - here Sex Matters are asking members of the public to take a risk they would not be taking themselves if they raised legal action (as they would be covered for loss/it would be organisational money not personal money they would be at risk of losing).

Not saying it is wrong overall to explain how to raise a claim but they really do need to include a disclaimer about risk of loss and clear advice to consult a lawyer before committing to a court case. Because right now their wording makes it sound like a walk in the park to some free cash.

They've provided a tool that members of public can use or not, nobody is forcing anyone over the top at the point of a bayonet here. Your willingness to view the public as foot soldiers who are incapable of deciding for themselves on their own course of action is very superior of you.

the risk that you might lose, which could include losing a substantial chunk of money if you've progressed to court.

Costs are almost never awarded in the small claims track, especially if you litigate in good faith - that's the point of it. This is discussed in the article.

So what is the risk?

It does actually say that you can add the court fee to the settlement request. And it definitely isn't clear that even if you win, you might end up in a loss overall.

This is the relevant passage:

*"When you tell the service provider that you have lodged a claim, it may try again to reach a settlement. If this happens, you may decide to ask for it to pay the court fee as well. If you are still unable to settle, you may be able to enter mediation.

If all else fails, you will need to go to court: the process can take several months to a year from start to finish."*

I don't like that it says "you will need to go to court" like that's the only option, because honestly deciding to go ahead at this point should be a considered decision; you're about to embroil yourself in a potential lengthy, stressful, costly endeavour, you need to be sure you can afford it, including that you can afford to lose, and you need to be taking legal advice to make sure you actually have a good case. Especially because a service provider won't refuse to settle unless they are also sure they have a good case, and if they're a sizable organisation they probably have an in-house legal team and plenty of resources to throw at the case that you as a private individual might not be able to match.

"If (eventually) you win, the judge will decide what compensation, if any, to award and the court will order the service provider to pay you. If the provider ignores the court order, the court will seek to collect the payment on your behalf."

And that's literally the only reference to risk: If you win. And it only tells you what happens if you win, no information on what happens if you lose. The wording almost makes it sound easy and inevitable that you will eventually win, to be honest, there is absolutely no disclaimer anywhere that there is always a risk you will lose, even if you've been advised your case is good. No advice anywhere to consult a lawyer.

Discussion and additional information:

Oh give over, there are most certainly gullible/vulnerable/over-confident/over-optimistic people out there who given the impression that a court case is an easy and straightforward way to make some money could be tempted to try and find themselves in over their head. There are people on this very thread saying it looks like a good way to make money.

It is only sensible, decent and common sense to make it clear that there is risk involved and that you should be taking professional advice about your particular case before committing your money to anything.

Thanks for this. The video shows that SM are keen to give people the tools that they need, if they think that they want to take on a small claim, while observing that it is not something one should just launch into without a clear head.

The website gives further links to https://www.advicenow.org.uk/get-help/going-court/small-claims-and-civil-court and https://www.advicenow.org.uk/get-help/going-court/small-claims-and-civil-court. The latter says: Small claims are sometimes called ‘money claims’. They’re meant to be simple, so you probably don’t need a solicitor.

As pp said, I imagine the hope is that the Letter before Action and any subsequent negotiation leads to a satisfactory resolution. If not, and one decides to go to 'small claims' court, the fee starts at £35.

It's my understanding that the small claims process exists so that people can take relatively simple legal action themselves without the need for contacting/using solicitors. The fees involved are proportionate to any compensation or refund claimed:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/deciding-whether-to-make-a-small-claim/

The maximum court fee is £455 and if a hearing is required the fee is £346 - this is for claims between £5000-£10,000. The basic fees are £35 and £27. If you are successful in your claim you are refunded the fees involved.

Edited to add addtional info on the process involved: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court/

The small claims track is designed for self-represented litigants. You rock up, tell the court what happened, and say it was discrimination, and present your evidence.

There are no legal costs beyond the court fees and some photocopying. That's the whole point.

You can have a solicitor if you want but there is no way that a claim for "I was asked to leave a pub for wearing a t-shirt" will ever be worth employing a lawyer because if and when you win you'll get £500-1000 damages and none of your costs.

The other side can employ a solicitor if they want; but it will cost them more to do that than to pay you to go away. Or the proprietor can turn up him/herself and put their case. That doesn't cost them anything either.

And it only tells you what happens if you win, no information on what happens if you lose.

If you lose, you lose, and you go home. Nothing happens.

No advice anywhere to consult a lawyer.

This procedure is designed for cases where it's not worthwhile to consult a lawyer. If you're not the sort of person who wants to represent themselves in a small claims court, this webpage is not for you.

Your posts, although presented as reasonable advice, are pure FUD. It is a well known sales technique.

make it clear that there is risk involved

What is the risk?

and that you should be taking professional advice about your particular case before committing your money to anything.

The point is that it is not necessary for this kind of action.

This. People need to understand what's being suggested before banging on about risk.

If you lose, you lose, and you go home. Nothing happens.

Apart from you have lost your money, which is not a minor detail for some people.